Sheldon, Hoyt & Co. v. Middleton

10 Iowa 17
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided November 4, 1859·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Woodward, J.

It will not be necessary to examine the demurrer in its details. That which the defendant claims as a denial of the execution of the note is insufficient. It is uncertain and does not amount to a denial. If he desired to see the note, he should crave an inspection of it. Without an affidavit he might deny so far as to enable him to offer evidence against it, but his answer must be an explicit denial. Lyon v. Bunn, 6 Iowa 48.

The facts pleaded by the defendant to show that the note is not the property of the plaintiffs are insufficient. If the note is in their hands as security, they may sue upon it. The indorsement places the legal property in them.

The denial that he owes the sum of $203.50 is not sufficient. It is only a denial that he owes that particular sum. Mann v. Howe et al., 9 Iowa 546.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sheldon, Hoyt & Co. v. Middleton, 10 Iowa 17 (iowa 1859).

10 Iowa 17 (Sheldon, Hoyt & Co. v. Middleton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Prior v. Rathjen
199 N.W.2d 327 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1972)
State Ex Rel. Fletcher v. District Court
238 N.W. 290 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1931)
Grimm v. Warner
45 Iowa 106 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1876)
Cottle v. Cole
20 Iowa 481 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1866)